Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

FRIDAY,  MARCH 26,  2010

GEE, OBAMA DIDN'T TELL US ABOUT THIS – AT 7:23 P.M. ET:  The unintended consequences of health-care "reform" are starting to appear.  They're not pleasant, and will further depress the economy.  Consider:

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- AT&T Inc. will book $1 billion in first-quarter costs related to the health-care law signed this week by President Barack Obama, the most of any U.S. company so far.

Yeah, somebody pays.  Not much emphasis on that when this monstrosity was shoved through.

A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.

We're sure those workers are thrilled.  You know what "changes" means.

AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, joins Caterpillar Inc., AK Steel Holding Corp. and 3M Co. in recording non-cash expenses against earnings as a result of the law. Health-care costs may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Watson. AT&T employed about 281,000 people as of the end of January.

And they'll be employing fewer to pay for the national order.

“Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees,” said Chris Larsen, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in New York, who rates AT&T shares “overweight” and doesn’t own any himself.

COMMENT:  Welcome to Obamacare.  I hope it covers ulcers.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

OUR ECONOMY MARCHES ON – AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  No matter how much the Obamans try to distract us from reality, it keeps creeping back in.  Some blunt facts:

Personal income in 42 states fell in 2009, the Commerce Department said Thursday.

Nevada's 4.8% plunge was the steepest, as construction and tourism industries took a beating. Also hit hard: Wyoming, where incomes fell 3.9%.

Incomes stayed flat in two states and rose in six and the District of Columbia. West Virginia had the best showing with a 2.1% increase. In Maine, Kentucky and Hawaii, increased government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and Social Security, offset drops in earnings and property values.

Please note that one of the few areas to show increased income was the District of Columbia.  Of course.  You hire all those new government workers, income in that area goes up.  Doesn't do a thing for the real economy.

The key factor is unemployment.  Florida, obviously a major political state, is especially hard hit:

Florida's unemployment hit 12.2 percent in February, the highest rate on record, soaring past even the rates recorded in the 1973-1975 recession, the state work force agency said Friday.

February's rate rose a 0.2 percentage point from the January revised rate of 12 percent. More than 1.26 million people are out of work in the state.

And with the federal government digging deeper in debt, our national picture is hardly encouraging.  This is the time for Republicans to come up with a comprehensive economic plan and present it to the American people. 

March 26, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER MOVE TOWARD DARKNESS – AT 6:28 P.M. ET:  The United Nations Human Rights Council has nothing to do with human rights.  Under President Bush, we boycotted the council, refusing to dignify it.  Obama put us back, giving the corrupt institution, run by dictators and Muslim nations, credibility.

Naturally, that foreign-policy step by The One backfired, just like most of his other brilliant moves.  He sold us the line that we could moderate the council, but it's just gotten worse:

Geneva - The United Nations Human Rights Council voted in favour of a resolution condemning so-called "defamation of religion" in a tight vote on Thursday.

A coalition of 17 mostly Western nations, including the United States and the Netherlands, opposed the resolution, but 20 states, including China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, voted in favour. Eight states abstained.

The resolution adopted by the 47-member council was similar to one passed last year, but also included a section slamming the recent Swiss vote to ban the construction of minarets in the country.

The resolution has drawn criticism from liberal groups over concerns of infringements on freedom of speech and a bias in favour of Islamic states.

I love it, I love it.  Criticism from "liberal" groups?  Seems to me that most of the criticism I hear is coming from conservative groups.  Many libs don't want to "offend" the dictators behind the resolution.

No mention of discrimination, other than anti-Muslim practices, was addressed in the resolution.

Opponents noted tight restrictions on Christians, Jews and others in states such as Saudi Arabia and Libya, which did not make it into the adopted text.

COMMENT:  The trouble is, resolutions like this are taken seriously in some less enlightened parts of the world, like Cambridge, Massachusetts.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

WATCH THIS CAREFULLY – AT 11:23 A.M. ET:  President Obama announced that the U.S. and Russia have reached agreement on an arms-control treaty.  Actually, this is may turn out to be more about fat than meat, but we still have to look at it with two eyes.

The treaty takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to ratify.  You can be sure Republicans will read every line.  There are concerns about the treaty's impact on missile defense.  The Washington Post reports:

President Obama and Russia President Dmitry Medvedev sealed a new nuclear arms reduction treaty during a phone call this morning, committing the two nations to a significant new reduction of the strategic missiles each side has deployed, U.S. officials announced Friday.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, flanked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen, announced the agreement to reporters at the White House, calling it an historic step toward a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama called nuclear weapons "the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time." He hailed the new treaty as the start of a new effort to rid the world of that threat.

"With this agreement, the United States and Russia -- the two largest nuclear powers in the world -- also send a clear signal that we intend to lead," he said.

COMMENT:  This is going to be heralded as the Second Coming, or even the First.  It's Obama's first "triumph" in foreign policy and his second victory this week, the first being the health-care vote.  He's shown a bump in the polls since that vote, although it comes entirely from Democrats. 

This treaty really won't change much, but it will be sold as "peace in our time," Chamberlain II.  And some people will buy the line.

Look for informed reaction in the next day or two.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

WHEN WILL OBAMA REBUKE HIM? – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  We get the sense, in examining the world's press, that many Europeans, especially conservatives, are growing wary of Obama and are articulating their own defense policies.  Consider:

In a speech prepared for delivery at a conference in Brussels Saturday, alliance Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said a NATO-wide missile defense system would show collective will to defend against a growing threat.

He immediately goes on Obama's "dangerous Danish imperialist" list. 

"We need a decision by NATO's next summit in November that missile defense for our populations and territories is an alliance mission. And that we will explore every opportunity to cooperate with Russia," Rasmussen said in an advance text of the speech made available by NATO.

In reiterating his wish to see collaboration with Russia, Rasmussen said this required a decision by Moscow "to see missile defense as an opportunity, rather than a threat."

Why should Russia cooperate, when non-cooperation has gotten them pretty much what they wanted from Obama – the cancellation of missile defense for Eastern Europe.

He said current trends showed a "real and growing" threat from weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, with more than 30 countries possessing or developing missiles with greater and greater ranges.

And...

Iran, which the West suspects of working to produce nuclear weapons, has said it possesses missiles with a range that would put NATO members Turkey, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria within reach, Rasmussen said.

If Tehran were to complete development of intermediate and intercontinental missiles after taking a key step in introducing its SAFIR 2 space-launch vehicle last year, "then the whole of the European continent, as well as all of Russia would be in range," he said.

Doesn't Rasmussen know that The One will place his hands upon the Iranian shoulders and turn the mullahs into peaceful moderates.  Just give the man some time.

"Proliferators must know that we are unwavering in our determination to collective defense."

No we're not.  We were unwavering.  Then we had something called Inauguration Day.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

NON-PALACE INTRIGUE, BUT IT'S ABOUT THE PALACE – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  There's an absolutely fascinating story making the rounds, although it's gotten stunningly little attention in the mainstream media.  But it may have implications for the future.

It involves General David Petraeus, the head of CENTCOM, and a man sometimes mentioned as a possible candidate for the presidency.  Petraeus has consistently said he isn't interested, and I have minimized the idea here...until now. 

Petraeus is a master politician, one of the most politically astute leaders in the military.  He is a declared Republican.  To run in 2012 he'd have to go up against his commander-in-chief, either by running in Republican primaries or by accepting a "draft."  There is also the possibility that he could accept a vice-presidential nod tendered by the Republican nominee. 

Possible?  Consider this story from the Jerusalem Post:

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the US Military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), telephoned IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi on Wednesday night to reassure Israel that comments attributed to him regarding supposed Israeli intransigence were spun out of context.

Last week, Petraeus testified before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee. A 56-page report that CENTCOM had submitted alongside Petraeus’s oral testimony caused a storm by claiming that Israeli intransigence was a problem for the US military and was fomenting conflict in the Middle East.

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests,” the CENTCOM report read. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the [Middle East] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

The above words, which appeared in the report but were not uttered by Petraeus in his oral testimony, were pounced upon by critics of Israel as confirmation of what many of them have said for years – that Israel is the source of instability in the region.

On Wednesday, though, Petraeus poured cold water on the written testimony. In an appearance at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, he told reporters that his testimony had been spun by bloggers.

And indeed it was.  The worst offender, the obnoxious Mark Perry, a former adviser to Yasir Arafat, spun the story at supersonic speed, and got some TV appearances out of it, including one with the groveling Rick Sanchez of CNN, who practically anointed Perry, a kind of jihadist groupie, a new god. 

But notice what Petraeus did:  On the very day that his commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, was humiliating the prime minister of Israel, Petraeus was going around the president and phoning his Israeli counterpart to give him assurance.  This is almost unheard of. 

What message was Petraeus sending?  I can only provide what I hope is informed speculation.  He may well have been setting out his independence from a president whose appeasement foreign policy is sinking.  He may well have been signaling the Republican Party that he's willing, eventually, to take on this shell of a president.  He may well have been signaling to the large pro-Israel community in America that he doesn't support the current Obama nuttiness. 

I stress that this is speculation.  I have no inside information.  But please notice where Petraeus is this week.  He's in New Hampshire.  Does that ring a political bell? 

You may be sure that this Chicago-educated White House noticed Petraeus's move.  Don't be shocked if you see some leaked stories in coming months downplaying Petraeus and his accomplishments, and possibly even hinting that the administration may be cooling toward him.  That's the way the game is played, especially by bullies.  If Petraeus makes any clear move toward politics, Obama will go after him.  This could get very interesting.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER BAD DAY FOR AMERICA – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  The great Ed Lasky (American Thinker) alerts us to a blunt piece by Ralph Peters, reviewing a bad day for American foreign policy, courtesy of The One and his brilliant thoughts:

Wednesday, March 24, 2010, was the worst day for US diplomacy in recent memory.

Between sunrise and sunset, we 1) handled our Israeli allies as enemies, 2) treated Pakistani gangsters as our benefactors and 3) got blindsided -- brilliantly -- by the Russians.

But who cares, as long as we've started down the road to socialized medicine?

First, the Russians: Well aware that President Obama desperately wants to hold in his hand a piece of paper guaranteeing nuclear arms cuts in our time, Moscow has been stalling and brawling to force us to bend to its will.

With a few last sticking points in play (which the White House refuses to make public), the Russian government blindsided US negotiators by announcing that the deal was done and the signing was on the calendar.

Folks, this is diplomacy at a level we can't begin to touch. With their unilateral announcement, the Russians ensured that Obama will cave on the final points -- otherwise, it would look as though he scuttled the disarmament deal and undercut his own argument for anti-nuclear sanctions on Iran.

Could we please hire Russian negotiators to work for us?

One of the things we've noted here in the last year is the sheer incompetence of Obama's foreign-policy team, starting with the increasingly heavy-handed Hillary Clinton.  

Simultaneously, the administration welcomed a Pakistani delegation with orgiastic generosity. The Pakistanis scribbled out the bill, and we whipped out our credit card.

Pakistan's undercutting every reform effort we've made in Afghanistan and setting itself up to be the one entity that profits from our blood sacrifices. Pakistani intelligence (the ISI) has been busting every Taliban member it can't control to enhance its clout in Afghanistan. And we imagine they're doing it for us.

And...

Last, but not least, there's our arctic treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu and our Israeli allies. Kim Jong-Il or Hugo Chavez would've gotten a warmer White House reception than Bibi did.

Wednesday in Washington was dedicated to shooting down one Israeli compromise offer after another. Of course, we haven't asked those valiant Palestinian freedom fighters (unfairly considered terrorists by reactionaries like me) to compromise a fraction of an inch.

The Palestinians dictate, the White House obeys.

Finally...

The ultimate travesty, of course, is that the Obama administration will spin each of Wednesday's triple-whammy debacles as a triumph. It showed those wicked Israelis who's boss; it gave treacherous Pakistanis all they demanded, and it got tricked by Russia into further weakening our strategic defenses.

This isn't a pattern of failure. It's a surrender cult.

COMMENT:  Ah, but Mr. Peters, the far left, both politically and journalistically, has no problem with surrender.  They welcome it.  Let's restrain the big, bad United States so that other "cultures" can take their rightful place in the world.  This is what they did in Vietnam.  They'll do it wherever they can. 

The sad fact is that there are "communities" in the United States who have no problem at all with the surrender cult.  They've been taught to believe that they're victims, and that the more the United States capitulates overseas, the more attention will be paid to them.  They live by their myths.

March 26, 2010   Permalink

THE BULLY SPEAKS – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  In the end, you have to believe that the president of the United States is a bully.  He has the characteristics of a bully:  He never picks on anyone his own size, he distorts the truth, he intimidates friends, and, when faced with real opposition, he runs away or caves in.

The bully was on fully display yesterday in Iowa, as The Politico reports:

IOWA CITY, Iowa — President Barack Obama challenged Republicans Thursday to bring on the debate if they plan to run on a platform of repealing the health care reform bill he signed into law just two days ago.

“My attitude is: Go for it," Obama said. "If these congressmen in Washington want to come here in Iowa and tell small-business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest."

Obama hit the trail Thursday in Iowa to promote the crowning achievement of his first 14 months in office: a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system. And he started his campaign for the new law in the state where his caucus win in 2008 set him on the road to the White House.

COMMENT:  What a crock.  How dumb does this man think we are?  We all know that the health-care monstrosity can't be repealed while he's still in the White House.  He'd veto any repeal legislation, and it takes two-thirds of Congress to override the veto.  Repeal and replace will have to wait until he's sent packing, and we hope that will happen in 2012.

The line he's using, that repeal would take things away from small-business owners, is a joke, but it's the obvious one.  One of the fundamental positions of the left is that someone else is trying to steal something from "the people."  Yes, there are benefits to the health bill, but, bottom line, we're all going to wind up paying for it, and those payments will outweigh, by quite a bit, any benefits.

But the bully will push on.  Now, he's also encountered Iran, and each day brings news that his position is crumbling more and more.  Bully.

March 26,  2010   Permalink

THURSDAY,  MARCH 25,  2010

NEW BIN LADEN THREAT – AT 8:16 P.M. ET:  While Obama was busy bashing an American ally, our enemies were active.  Osama bin Laden has made another threat, and this one is completely credible:

(March 25) -- Osama bin Laden leveled a new threat against the U.S. in an audio recording released today, saying al-Qaida will kill American captives if the U.S. executes Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or other terror suspects in its custody.

Bin Laden named Mohammed specifically in the 74-second recording aired on Al-Jazeera television.

"The White House announced they intend to sentence them to death," he said on the recording. "When the U.S. takes that decision, it means they will take a decision that any hostage who falls in our hands will be sentenced to death."

And...

It remains unclear whether there are any U.S. captives in al-Qaida custody. In December, the Haqqani group of the Pakistan-based Taliban faction released a video of a U.S. soldier they captured in Afghanistan in June.

COMMENT:  You can be sure that bin Laden is planning ways to grab American hostages, and it isn't all that difficult.  It can be done on the streets of a city, especially one in Pakistan.  That's the way Danny Pearl was captured.  He was later beheaded.

If bin Laden can grab a couple of Americans, especially servicemen, we're checkmated on the death penalty for terrorist detainees, and may even have to release some to save American lives.  The enemy is not without his means.  He's low tech, and determined.  We're high tech, with a president who really wants us to beg forgiveness for our imagined sins.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

SEND BACK THE CLOWNS – AT 7:45 P.M. ET:  The damage done by Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to our relationship with Israel is already having its negative effects, as anyone familiar with the Mideast knew it would.

Despite statements by both the U.S. and Israel that progress was made during Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington, Palestinian spokesmen now claim that no progress was made.  This is the old Arab technique of moving the goalposts.  Give them something that they hint will satisfy them, and they immediately move the goalposts and ask for more.  Say there's progress, and they declare no progress.  The president, who has no real experience in foreign policy, doesn't know this or doesn't care.

Whatever one thinks of Benjamin Netanyahu, and my feelings are mixed, he is the elected leader of an ally, as is Gordon Brown (UK) and Nicolas Sarkozy (France.)  All these men have been humiliated at one time or another by Barack Obama.  Netanyahu should not have been subjected to the constant humiliations he was handed during his trip to Washington.  Even some writers who've been critical of Israeli policy have been appalled.  We watched today as the foreign minister of Pakistan, a nation with so-so relations with the United States, was given the dignity of a joint news conference with Secretary Clinton, a routine gesture of respect denied to the prime minister of Israel.

Obama clearly has a hostility toward American allies, and a certain sympathy for our enemies.  That fits in well with his profoundly left-wing upbringing and, despite all denials, his Muslim heritage.  We can respect that heritage, and demand that it not be used against the president in racist or unsavory ways, but we have a perfect right to discuss it.  Believe me, if Obama were an evangelical Christian, we'd be hearing about it from CNN every day. 

So now we have a mess with Israel.  It is, I fear, the first step toward Obama trying to impose his own settlement on the Arab-Israeli conflict, something he may dream will get him a second Nobel Peace Prize.  (I can just see him standing up there in Oslo saying, "This one I earned.") 

The United States is at its best in the Mideast when it gives Israel the confidence, through our backing, to allow the Israelis to demonstrate reasonable and mature flexibility.  But Washington has now pulled the rug out from under Israel, in an act of naked appeasement toward the Palestinians, who are divided and aimless.  Let's see how our national interest is served.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

FORECLOSURES – AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  Some economists are predicting a new foreclosure crisis this year, and the Obamans are reacting with a proposal.  From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration plans to overhaul how it's tackling the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed, senior officials said Thursday.

Banks and other lenders would have to reduce the payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower's income, which would typically be their unemployment insurance, for up to six months. In some cases, administration officials said, a lender could allow a borrower to make no payments at all.

The new push, which the White House is scheduled to announce Friday, takes direct aim at the major cause of the current wave of foreclosures: the spike in unemployment. While the initial mortgage crisis that erupted three years ago resulted from millions of risky home loans that went bad, more recent defaults reflect the country's economic downturn and the inability of jobless borrowers to keep paying.

The administration's newest push also seek to more aggressively help borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth, by encouraging lenders to cut the loan balances of millions of these distressed homeowners and possibly refinance into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. The problem of so-called "underwater" borrowers has bedeviled earlier administration efforts to address the mortgage crisis as home prices plunged.

COMMENT:  Let's try to sort this out.  Once again, as in the health-care farce, the administration mixes together good ideas with bad ones, with an overall drift toward more federal control of the economy.

It's reasonable that banks come up with creative measures to save the homes of people who are legitimately unemployed.  There could certainly be forgiveness for a number of months, or just paying interest for those months, or reductions for a period of time.  I'd much prefer that those things be negotiated privately, and they often are.  If the federal government enters the picture, with its heavy hand, you can have a foreclosure problem leading to a bank liquidity problem, if the income of small banks is suddenly cut.  Compassion and understanding, of course.  But these things must be linked to practices that avoid another banking crisis.

On the second point, helping borrowers who owe more on their homes than their homes are worth...excuse me, but where is it written, as they say, that the government should guarantee profits in real estate?  For too many years, Americans were told that you can't lose money on real estate.  Now the government wants to guarantee that proposition. 

Homeowners, like anyone else – investors, business owners, professionals setting up a practice – must understand that there are risks involved.  The irresponsible, adolescent mentality that governed real estate for too long cannot be permitted to become national policy.  If you help one sector to maintain profitability, what about other sectors?  Do we nationalize real estate, the way we nationalized part of the auto industry?  And, by the way, if homeowners in some distress get bailed out by Peter, what is to prevent Paul, in the form of utility companies, phone companies, and local taxing authorities, from raising their rates, knowing that their customers are in a better position to pay them?

What we have here is a circular firing squad.  We see it in "federal aid to education" all the time.  The federal government gives out education grants, and the colleges respond by raising their prices, which they call tuition.  Hey, kids are getting federal money, aren't they?

Look at these proposals with two eyes.  Yes to compassion and aid to those truly in need, no to financial gimmicks that can easily backfire.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

REPEAL, THEY SAY – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen has been monitoring public opinion on what we should do about the health bill.  The answer is pretty clear:

Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

COMMENT:  So far, so good.  These figures can go even further in our direction once Americans realize that most of the benefits in the bill won't kick in for years. 

The health system, by common consent, requires reform and repair.  It's just that the Dems chose the worst way to do it.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

CHICAGO POLITICS – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  Democratic leaders have spent the last few days complaining about the roughness in America's current political culture.  Maybe some of their own operatives didn't get the memo.  You think?  From The Politico:

Senior White House and organized labor officials are warning the handful of House Democrats who supported health care legislation last year only to oppose the final measure on Sunday that they shouldn’t expect assistance for their reelection campaigns this fall.

The five who switched from yes to no — Reps. Michael Arcuri of New York, Marion Berry of Arkansas, Daniel Lipinski of Illinois, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts and Zack Space of Ohio — have so annoyed top Democrats that there is also open talk of finding opponents to ensure they pay a steep political price for changing their vote.

“We’re looking at candidates we can trust to run against them, either through a primary or in the general election,” said Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, noting that recruitment conversations were already under way.

Of the five who switched, Burger said flatly, “They should not expect help from us.”

COMMENT:  You'd think, now that the health bill has passed, that Democratic leaders and their allies would try to unify the party and realize that some members had serious problems with the bill.  But these are hardline machine politicians.  The Service Employees International Union represents public employees, who are rapidly becoming one of the most powerful forces in society.  This is a bad brew, bad for the Democratic Party, for democracy, and for the country.  Not that they care.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

AND ANOTHER DISGRACE – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  I sometimes feel there's a celestial camera aimed at the Obama administration, and the lens becomes more and more focused every day.  Now, as the focus gets even sharper, the image reveals still one more disgrace for our country.  From Fox:

VIENNA -- The U.S. has backed away from pursuing a number of tough measures against Iran in order to win support from Russia and China for a new United Nations Security Council resolution on sanctions, according to people familiar with the matter.

Among provisions removed from the original draft resolution the U.S. sent to key allies last month were sanctions aimed at choking off Tehran's access to international banking services and capital markets, and closing international airspace and waters to Iran's national air cargo and shipping lines, according to the people.

Why bother with anything?  The softer sanctions aren't worth the non-acidic paper they're written on.  Maybe 16-pound yellow draft paper.

The U.S. and allies are trying to force Iran to rein in a nuclear program that they worry is aimed at developing atomic weapons. Tehran says its nuclear activities are peaceful. The U.K. and Germany, concerned that Russia and China would reject the resolution outright and preferring to turn up pressure on Iran gradually, persuaded U.S. officials to drop or soften several elements, including some of the document's harshest provisions, the people said.

I love it.  They prefer to "turn up the pressure on Iran gradually."  They've been negotiating with the Iranians for more than seven years, with no result.  How much more "gradual" can this get?

U.S. officials said they wouldn't comment on the day-by-day negotiations taking place among the Security Council members. But they stressed that the Obama administration is seeking the toughest measures possible against Tehran while maintaining unity among the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany, which are drafting the sanctions.

Oh please.  Oh please, please.  How dumb do the Obamans think we are?  They're seeking the "toughest measures possible against Tehran while maintaining unity among the five permanent members..."

Translated into English:  We'll be tough until someone says no.

The late Gen. Lauris Norstad, a NATO commander in the 1950s, once observed that toughness is not a policy.  You have to decide what to be tough about.  We've apparently decided, and then reversed the decision.  Great.  The Iranians must really be impressed. 

So, to sum up the foreign policy of The One in the last few weeks:  Cancel trips to Indonesia and Australia, bash Israel, order American troops to march in Red Square, and soften proposed sanctions on Iran.

Aren't you proud?

March 25, 2010   Permalink

HUH? – AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  We almost missed this.  Fortunately, our friend, Scott Johnson, at Power Line, alerted us to one of the more curious developments we've seen in American foreign policy:

MOSCOW — The British Embassy says British, French and U.S. troops will march with Russian soldiers on Red Square to mark the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany.

It said in a statement Thursday that the May 9 parade will include a Royal Air Force band and a detachment of Welsh Guards.

The statement said the parade may mark the first time British troops have marched in Red Square.

The U.S. Embassy confirmed that U.S. soldiers will take part in the parade.

As Kim Zigfeld writes at Pajamas Media:

All part of the now infamous Obama “reset” on Russia. Next stop for U.S. troops? Maybe a similar parade in Tehran?

Make no mistake about how Russians will understand this event. Putin will say to them: “You see, not only will they not help you fight for democracy, they will march against you. They will help me crush you.” Meanwhile Russian propagandists lose no opportunity to divide and conquer the West, even going so far as to buzz Alaska with nuclear bombers on a routine basis.

COMMENT:  I find this sickening – American soldiers marching in Red Square, honoring the Russian regime.  What makes it doubly bad is the possibility, not yet firm, that the Kremlin may once again mount huge posters of Joe Stalin around Moscow so that the old reds can remind frightened Russians who the boss once was.

So, now we have it:  The president of the United States humiliates Britain, France and Israel, but has American soldiers march in the symbolic capital of old Communism.   I'm sure the troopers will love it.  Maybe Mr. Obama should ask some Korea or Vietnam vets to march as well, and see what their reaction is.

Russia is no friend of the United States and is certainly far from an ally.  Our real allies in Eastern Europe, having been stripped of their promised anti-missile protection by Obama, will be watching.  You don't have to wonder what they'll be thinking.

March 25, 2010   Permalink

SYMBOLISM – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  The Republicans in the Senate have scored a minor, and temporary, victory, but we caution that it will probably have no ultimate significance.  From the Washington Post:

Senate Republicans have successfully identified two minor violations of reconciliation rules in the final piece of the health-care package. The violations will force the Senate to change the reconciliation bill and ship it to the House of Representatives for final passage.

But Democratic leaders said the provisions that will be struck -- from the part of the bill dealing with Pell Grants for college students -- do not significantly affect the student loan program or the health care bill overall.

The corrected legislation most likely will not be subjected to additional challenges when it is sent back to the House, Democratic staffers said, and is expected to receive final approval before the weekend.

COMMENT:  It's time for Republicans to move on, and realize that the bill is passed and signed, and that the reconciliation package, fixing the original bill, will be signed by early next week.  Polls show that Americans are still heavily skeptical of the health plan, and that is what the GOP should build on.  The new Republican mantra is "repeal, replace and reform," and that is exactly right. 

The Republicans did not do the full, required job in the health-care debate.  While some fine ideas came from the Republican side, there was never a complete plan, wrapped up in a red ribbon.  And in today's media world, you need the ribbon. 

The GOP must go to the people in November with a full plan, far more attractive, and far less expensive, than the one that was just adopted.  When Americans find out the true cost of what's just been done, the Republican challenge will be easier.  But since Republicans have a nasty history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, take nothing for granted.

March 25,  2010   Permalink